They are two completely different pains, I would imagine childbirth would be like somebody taking your mouth and stretching your lips as far as possible, something similar to that. And being kicked in the balls is a jolt of pain that eh would probably be similar to being stabbed or shot in the leg or something.

Can't really compare the two, since childbirth pain is not consistent. Some women feel no pain at all, while others feel pain which is mainly due to the baby itself rather than because of the process of childbirth (for e.g. the baby's skull is too big for the birth canal, the baby doesn't want to come out yet, the baby's tangled in the umbilical cord).

In conclusion, getting kicked in the nuts is worse, because the pain is consistent, every man (who still has them) will definitely feel pain when getting kicked there (unless he was born with Congenital insensitivity to pain).

This answer is complete garbage. If you're going to make things up, then at least try to keep your answers reasonable. Go haul a refrigerator alone up four flights of stairs and you might get an idea of the kind of strain that labor puts on your body. Contractions are essentially rhythmic seizing of massive smooth muscles, and they hurt the way straining to lift very heavy weights can hurt - only instead of doing a few repetitions they go on for hours and hours.

Which part did I make up exactly?

You're the one making things up, not all childbirth go on for "hours and hours".

That's why I said it's inconsistent, some women give birth straight away once they enter labour and some go on for "hours and hours" due to complications relating to the baby itself -- not the actual childbirth process.

You're the one making things up, not all childbirth go on for "hours and hours".

That's why I said it's inconsistent, some women give birth straight away once they enter labour and some go on for "hours and hours" due to complications relating to the baby itself -- not the actual childbirth process.

The average labor time is 8 to 12 hours, depending on your demographic. No matter how you count it, both are "hours and hours". As in, two groups of multiple hours, which means a minimum of four. I don't know the percentage of women who have labors followed by vaginal delivery under four hours, but I am willing to bet that it's two standard deviations away from the mean.

Semantics aside, this statement is problematic for me:

GayAsianBoywrote:... others feel pain which is mainly due to the baby itself rather than because of the process of childbirth (for e.g. the baby's skull is too big for the birth canal, the baby doesn't want to come out yet, the baby's tangled in the umbilical cord).

Contractions are painful by themselves, and the complications that you described only prolong the labor and increase the number of contractions required to expel the infant. These complications are painful because contractions are painful, not because the baby is causing pain to the mother. Pain caused by the baby would include kicking and breaking ribs, tearing the perineum during crowning, and back labor, which happens when the baby is facing forward in the birth canal, and arches its head to push against the coccyx.

Don't get me wrong - I don't think that the pain associated with childbirth is intolerable. Obviously that is not the case, or else women would refuse to have multiple children. But I do think that your need to review the data and revise your analysis, because it sucked.

Both types of pain can now be avoided. Caesarean can be used to avoid childbirth pain and agreeing to not kick anyone in the balls helps decrease instances of that type of pain. Oh and wearing a jockstrap when playing contact sports helps too.

Can't really compare the two, since childbirth pain is not consistent. Some women feel no pain at all, while others feel pain which is mainly due to the baby itself rather than because of the process of childbirth (for e.g. the baby's skull is too big for the birth canal, the baby doesn't want to come out yet, the baby's tangled in the umbilical cord).

In conclusion, getting kicked in the nuts is worse, because the pain is consistent, every man (who still has them) will definitely feel pain when getting kicked there (unless he was born with Congenital insensitivity to pain).

As long as childbirth occurs at around the expected time, the baby's head is always too big to fit through the mother's pelvic inlet let alone the mother's birth canal/vagina.

I would find it hard to believe getting hit in the nuts would be as bad. Yeah its a mind-numbing pain that gives the body one heck of a jolt but it only lasts for a few minutes at max. Not to mention all the other not so fun things that go into pregnancy, I'm happy I will never experience it.

You're the one making things up, not all childbirth go on for "hours and hours".

That's why I said it's inconsistent, some women give birth straight away once they enter labour and some go on for "hours and hours" due to complications relating to the baby itself -- not the actual childbirth process.

The average labor time is 8 to 12 hours, depending on your demographic. No matter how you count it, both are "hours and hours". As in, two groups of multiple hours, which means a minimum of four. I don't know the percentage of women who have labors followed by vaginal delivery under four hours, but I am willing to bet that it's two standard deviations away from the mean.

"It is impossible to anticipate the length of labour. Every woman and every labour is individual. In general women expecting their first baby will take longer than women expecting a subsequent baby (though this does not always hold true). For a first baby, the average length of the first stage of labour is 12 to 14 hours, the second stage 1 to 2 hours and the third stage 5 to 60 minutes. Women expecting a subsequent baby can expect the first stage to last around 6 to 8 hours and the second stage lasting from 5 to 60 minutes. Remember that these are only averages. Women can have quick labours and long labours and anything in between (Robertson, 1999)."

GayAsianBoywrote:... others feel pain which is mainly due to the baby itself rather than because of the process of childbirth (for e.g. the baby's skull is too big for the birth canal, the baby doesn't want to come out yet, the baby's tangled in the umbilical cord).

Contractions are painful by themselves, and the complications that you described only prolong the labor and increase the number of contractions required to expel the infant. These complications are painful because contractions are painful, not because the baby is causing pain to the mother. Pain caused by the baby would include kicking and breaking ribs, tearing the perineum during crowning, and back labor, which happens when the baby is facing forward in the birth canal, and arches its head to push against the coccyx.

Don't get me wrong - I don't think that the pain associated with childbirth is intolerable. Obviously that is not the case, or else women would refuse to have multiple children. But I do think that your need to review the data and revise your analysis, because it sucked.

Contractions are most painful during the transitional stage from first to second and during the second stage of labour because that's when it become stronger and sharper.

But according to the statistics from this journal article:

"Bonica found that labor pain was mild in 15%
of cases, moderate in 35%, severe in 30% and extreme
in 20%."

others feel pain which is mainly due to the baby itself rather than because of the process of childbirth (for e.g. the baby's skull is too big for the birth canal, the baby doesn't want to come out yet, the baby's tangled in the umbilical cord).

The source of intensive pain comes from the problems associated with the BABY ITSELF. Contractions are there because the baby is still there when it's supposed to be out already.

_____________________________

You saying that the baby is not the source of pain is like saying mothers who have died from pregnancy in the past did not die from problems associated with the baby (such as the skull size being bigger than the birth canal leading to huge tear in uterine and vaginal tissue leading to huge blood loss), but they died from the pain of contractions.

I'd say no comparison anyone who thinks getting kicked in the balls is worse is kidding themselves, I've heard child birth can be compared to a guy trying to pass a baseball through his urinary tract. Think of that for a moment... If that's true child birth is far worse.

Can't really compare the two, since childbirth pain is not consistent. Some women feel no pain at all, while others feel pain which is mainly due to the baby itself rather than because of the process of childbirth (for e.g. the baby's skull is too big for the birth canal, the baby doesn't want to come out yet, the baby's tangled in the umbilical cord).

In conclusion, getting kicked in the nuts is worse, because the pain is consistent, every man (who still has them) will definitely feel pain when getting kicked there (unless he was born with Congenital insensitivity to pain).

This answer is complete garbage. If you're going to make things up, then at least try to keep your answers reasonable. Go haul a refrigerator alone up four flights of stairs and you might get an idea of the kind of strain that labor puts on your body. Contractions are essentially rhythmic seizing of massive smooth muscles, and they hurt the way straining to lift very heavy weights can hurt - only instead of doing a few repetitions they go on for hours and hours.

Actually, he is completely correct about childbirth. Example: My sister's most recent was delivered within minutes of arriving at the hospital. No pain at all, came home same day. I've seen 15 deliveries so far and each was different. However, I do not agree that getting kicked in the nards is inherently more painful because of those facts. It depends on the situation and the individual for either scenario.